Abstract

Among many leadership styles, servant leadership is among recent style that is getting a wide range of attention and acceptance among business researchers and academia. The aim of this paper was to investigate the effect of Servant leadership influence on teaching effectiveness. Data were collected through questionnaires from 480 students of two public sector universities KPK. Structured Equation Modeling (AMOS) was employed to test the hypotheses of the study. Three models were developed and tested. The results show that Servant Leadership had a positive but insignificant impact on teaching effectiveness; interesting findings are that individual dimensions of servant leadership had a strong positive and significant impact on teaching effectiveness. Thus, this paper provides in-depth analysis necessary for higher educational institutes and Business institutions, for practical and theoretical implications to adopt servant leadership at the workplace.

Key Words

Servant Leadership (SL), Leadership, Teaching Effectiveness (TE), Structural Equation        Modeling

Introduction

Leadership is a prominent subject among the most comprehensive forms of social impact in business studies. This is due to the achievement of all legal, authoritarian and political frameworks that are based on the successful and competent leadership by pioneers of these milestones. Despite being studied for decades, researchers are still keen on exploring the qualities and behavior of leaders in management studies. During the past decades, many leadership researchers have sought to achieve more of understanding the partnership between morality and leadership. One area of research and an expanding theory of leadership related to morality, excellence and deep values has been Servant Leadership (SL) (Peterson & Galvin, 2012). Servant leadership is an emerging leadership theory; that requires more attention to increase the body of knowledge and its validation (Noland & Richards, 2014). The concept of SL has been widely compared and equated with multiple leadership styles, for instance, Transformational style of leadership, ethical leadership, spiritual leaders, visionary leadership, authentic leadership and supportive leadership (Sendjaya, Sarros & Santora, 2008).

A servant leader portrays a style that rises above self-centeredness to satisfy the needs of others by helping them develop both professionally and personally (Carder, 2012). Instead of focusing on organizational goals first, servant leaders place follower’s needs on first priority.

Among the reviews on leader-follower elements, servant leadership is considered to be the most dominant and creative (Qian et al., 2016). Due to high popularity among corporate leaders using servant leadership, educators have become keen on its application inside the classroom (Drury, 2005, Jacobs, 2011). Servant leadership could be the ultimate source to produce high quality, professional teachers in the educational sector (Metzcar, 2008). In order to compete for a student in universities, SL could be an essential style for teachers to increase learning in the classroom (Jacobs, 2011). In an informal conversation, when students were asked to rate their best teacher, they didn’t list creative lecture or even earning high marks. Instead, students often specified the behavior of the teacher in rousing them to develop as a superior individual (Greenleaf, 1977), this is why SL is so much effective in shaping such kind of behavior of the teacher. Leaders are goal-oriented, and they strongly believe in the outcome. For a faculty, the outcome is learning and achieving the goal; servant leadership could be the most useful method (Horan et al., 2013). The positive findings of the study will help universities administration to design a creative training program for teachers to teach the basic qualities of servant leaders.

Although servant leadership has been the hot topic in many sectors, still it may be a required field in academia, where limited reviews have been conducted on the connection between SL and Teachers Effectiveness (Noland & Richards, 2014). Besides, this area of leadership requires more attention regarding Pakistani social settings, where different styles of leadership have gained popularity, but servant leadership is one that still needs more attention (Haider et al., 2015). Majority of the studies on servant leadership have been conducted in western countries, where according to Hofstede (1984) individualistic & low power distance culture prevails as compare to collectivism in Asian countries. As Pakistan is popular, to have a collectivistic and high-power distance culture, therefore, it can be contended that cultural contrast might be a potential avocation to think about servant leadership and its conceivable attitudinal results in the Pakistani social setting. Furthermore, the theory of servant leadership has been ignored with respect to public sector organizations of Pakistan (Tajammal & Ali, 2012, Haider et al., 2015, Yasir et al., 2016). To fill up this gap, the researcher must focus on the implication of having servant leadership in Public sector universities. 

Following are the objectives of the study.




Objectives of the Study

• To investigate the relationship between Servant Leadership and Teaching effectiveness in Public sector universities, KPK

• To investigate the relationship between Valuing People and Teaching Effectiveness

• To investigate the relationship between Developing People and Teaching Effectiveness

Literature Review

Origin and Theory of Servant Leadership   

The concept of servant leadership is a fascinating and paradoxical idea, as the concept has been developed by two words, serve and lead. Historically, the idea of servant leadership has been traced back to Jesus Christ Ford, (1999), but much of the modern research follows the work of Greenleaf who originated the concept four decades ago when he defined servant leaders as those who serves first (Greenleaf, 1977). His findings revealed that such kind of leaders has natural feelings to serve the needs of followers first. SL is kind of spiritual leaders; they always show full support and commitment to their followers. An individual who uses SL believes in zero power motives. Servant leaders are committed toward development welfare of people. Selflessness, consciousness and straightforwardness are the attributes of servant leaders (Johnson 2001).

Till date, many models of SL have been developed. Presently, the models created by Laub (1999), Spears (1995), Russell and Stone (2002), are among the most persuasive. Laub (1999) is considered the pioneering authority and author, who proposed the characteristics of servant leadership. This study focuses on the Organizational Leadership Assessment tool (Laub, 1999), originally developed by Greenleaf to measure servant leadership. For instance, Valuing People (Paying attention deferentially, satisfying the needs of followers on top priority); Developing People (Creating an environment of learning, shaping individual proper behaviour); Building Community (Establishing a firm relationship,  building strong relationships, showing cooperation); Displaying Authenticity (Showing honesty, faith, sincerity, accountability); Providing Leadership (Building a vision, initiating a structure); Sharing Leadership (building a shared vision, encouraging participation in decisions-making and authority, and status). To lead and influence followers, all these qualities play a vital role.

 

 Servant Leadership in Education

Servant leadership has been explored in many sectors like churches, industries, and corporate sectors and as a

 result of the popularity in the business sector; academia has also become keen on examining the implications of servant leadership within the classroom (Jacobs, 2011, Parris & Peachey, 2013). Teachers are considered as the leaders in the class; servant leadership applications are suitable for teachers in educational institutes. Similarly, servant teachers are seen by others as authentic and holding solid relationship-building aptitude. Faculty who represent servant leadership features will encourage student’s participation and interest (Bowman, 2004). According to Cerit (2010), servant teachers keep the interest of students alive, which ultimately increase learning. One of the core characteristics of servant leaders is to give value to the followers (Laub, 1999) students put more effort for those instructors who they believe shows them consideration.    

When applied in business and educational setups, servant leadership caused self-sufficiency, personality development, workforce satisfaction, enhanced learning (Chonko, 2007). Though the concept of servant leadership is being discussed and operationalized with a wide range of characteristics, still lacks consensus on an accurate definition (Aaron & Keith, 2015). Thus more research is needed to explain the phenomena.

 

Teaching Effectiveness

Due to the intense pressure, higher educational institutes are paying more attention to enhance the quality of teaching all over the world. The fundamentals of teaching effectiveness are comprised of command on the subject, teaching techniques and abilities, knowledge of students level of understanding. To define teaching effectiveness and its characteristics, many efforts have been made that reflect different theoretical perspectives, both quantitative and qualitative aspects of multi-disciplines, but no consensus has been developed on the universal definition of teaching effectiveness (Devlin & Samarawickrema, 2010). The most common methods to rate teacher effectiveness within the class are self-rating, student evaluation, peer evaluations (Goe et al., 2008). Effective teachers are those who maintain proper interaction and relationship with their students, resulting in high gains in academic (Wayne & Youngs, 2003).

 

Servant Leadership & Teaching Effectiveness                           

Servant Leadership has remained a discussion point in the educational sector for many researchers (Drucker, 2005, Metzcar, 2008, Jacobs, 2011, Aaron & Keith, 2015), the study revealed a strong association between teaching effectiveness and servant leadership. Faculty members who have servant leadership qualities pay more attention to the students’ success and build, develop, and create a sense of achievement in their classrooms. (Sindhu et al., 2017; Arif et al., 2017) proposed that positive relationships enhance better change and more justice definitely improves learning effectiveness in the education sector. However, limited studies have been conducted to examine the concept of class leadership and its association with teacher effectiveness (Metzcar, 2008, Jacobs, 2011, Noland & Richards, 2014).  Instructors, who are effective, possess the various qualities of servant leaders (Drury, 2005). SL is a kind of a leader that always delivers payback to the organization, and this style can be replicated in the classroom as well (Cerit, 2010). According to the studies (Metzcar, 2008, Crippen, 2006), SL positively influences TE. On the other hand, the findings of Jacobs, (2011) totally contradicted the results of Metzgar, Jacobs findings revealed no such relationship between SL & TE. Based on inconsistent findings of Jacobs, she further recommended the investigation between the two variables.

Based on the above literature support, the following hypothesis is thus proposed:

H1: There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and teaching effectiveness Although there are various teaching methodologies, still many college teachers are not aware of these effective teaching methodologies. Hence, this study advocates that the style and values of servant leader may help adopt effective teaching methodologies, which will ultimately lead to better teaching and learning in the university classroom. In the following chart, various effective teaching methodologies have been discussed with the operational definition of Laubs (1999).

 

 

 

 

Chart

Table 1

Servant Leadership	Methods of Teaching Effectiveness
Values people •  Having faith in followers •  Followers’ needs are on the top priority	“The best way to treat student is to give him/her true respect and importance” Ralph Waldo Emerson To clearly understand the concepts and topics, Teachers are encouraged to initiate interactive sessions (Lewis & Starks 1998).
Develops people •  By creating a culture of support and higher learning •  By affecting the behavior of individuals • By creating and encouraging successful energy in individuals	Students are encouraged to urge other students to play a dynamic role in learning procedures. In order to increase the learning of students following certain methods can be helpful, for instance, Action activity, Andragogy and other creative methods of learning. (Knowles, 1984, Stinson, 1996).

Chart is Adopted from (Drury, 2005) Study.

 

Metzcar (2008), concluded in his study that instructor who represent SL qualities, will give more value and importance to their pupils, such kind of teachers always focus on the development of students, and they provide a right direction to students. The above methodologies discussed are providing the basis to support the following hypothesis.

H2: There is a positive relationship between value people and teaching effectiveness

H3: There is a positive relationship between developing people and teaching effectiveness

Research Design

Population & Sampling 

The whole population (students) for this study was 16500 approximately, based on two public sector universities of KPK, University of Peshawar and Bacha Khan University Charssada. The sample size for this population according to morgan table is 377. Two strata were made of two public sector universities (UoP, BKUC) and respondents (students) were selected randomly. Data were collected from students of two universities, through a simple random sample. Out of 560, 480 questionnaires were collected from the respondents. The respondents in the study consisted of students who are studying at different departments of two public sector universities in KPK. AMOS software Structural equation modelling was employed for the analysis of the study, and measurement models were used for the selection of items.




Instrument

Both SL and TE were measured through the questionnaire. Which were adopted from various studies and modified version were used. For SL, TLA (teacher leadership assessment) was utilized to determine the level of servant leadership among faculty members. The TLA is a refined version Organizational Leadership Assessment instrument. The TLA consist of 60 questions based on 5 Likert scales. For Teaching Effectiveness, the researcher used, Student ‘Evaluation of Teaching Effectiveness Rating Scale (SETERS) adopted from (Toland & Ayala, 2005). The SETERS consists of 34 items with 5 Likert scale.

Data Analysis

SPSS package was employed for descriptive analysis of the study. Table 1, portrays the value of mean, maximum, minimum and standard deviation of the data. This study employed structural equation modelling (AMOS) to investigate the relationship. Furthermore, in order to ensure the validity and reliability of the constructs, the study measure reliability by Cronbach’s alpha, construct reliability and average variance extracted (AVE) while the validity is ascertained by convergent and discriminant validity. Table 2, below depicts all factor the loading with AVE, CR and Cronbach’ alpha. The values of convergent and discriminant validity can be seen in table 2 and table 3.

 

Table 2. Descriptive Statistic

Variables	Mean	Maximum	Minimum	Number	SD
Servant leadership	3.42	5	1	401	.753
Teaching effectiveness	2.56	5	1	401	.524
Value People	3.88	5	1	401	.697
Develop People	3.33	5	1	401	.897

 

In descriptive statistic is shown that the highest mean value is of value people and the lowest in the teaching effectiveness. Similarly, the standard deviation value ranges from .521 to .897.

 

Table 3. Construct Validity

Construct	Number of Dimensions	Factor Loading	AVE	CR	CB Alpha
Servant Leadership	S_VP	0.75	0.51	0.85	0.78
	S_DP	0.76
	S_BC	0.86
	S_DA	0.73
	S_PL	0.71
	S_SL	0.77
Teaching effectiveness	IDI 1	0.85	0.51	0.80	0.72
	IDI 3	0.84
	IDI 5	0.79
	ISI 1	0.73
	ISI 4	0.60
	ISI 5	0.56
	RSL 1	0.71
	RSL 3	0.79
	RSL 5	0.81
Value People	VP 1	0.89	0.53	0.81	0.83
	VP 3	0.92
	VP 5	0.78
	VP 6	0.73
	VP 8	0.74
	VP 9	0.83
Develop people	DP 1	0.75	0.52	0.845	0.79
	DP 5	0.88
	DP 6	0.82
	DP 8	0.69
	DP 9	0.66

 

This established the convergent and discriminant validity and the values of convergent and discriminant validity can be seen in table 2 and table 3.

 

Table 4. Multiple Correlation and Squared Average Variance Extracted

	CR	AVE	MSV	ASV	TE	VP	DP	SL
TE	0.806	0.516	0.339	0.221	0.718
VP	0.814	0.536	0.016	0.012	0.128	0.733
DP	0.845	0.527	0.355	0.236	0.582	0.107	0.726
SL	0.855	0.519	0.357	0.224	0.555	0.076	0.599	0.718

*Bold Values Represent Square Root of AVE

 

The SEM analysis is performed in two main stages. In the first stage, the researcher established validity and conducted the CFA for the purpose to ascertain the goodness of fit of the model and in the second stage the three

structured models were formed and also validated.

The results of confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) depicted the inappropriateness of goodness of fit of the model. [GFI=.667; CFI=.659; RMSEA=.391; ?2/df=16.812]. In order to achieve the proper level of goodness of fit, the researcher deleted the items which factor loadings were below the benchmark, items of VP 2, VP 4, VP 7 and VP 10, another deleted items are DP 2, DP 3, DP 4, DP 7, and DP 10, while items deleted from the teaching effectiveness are; IDI 2, IDI 4, ISI 2, ISI 3, RSL 2, RSL 4. After dropping these items, the new goodness of fit of the model improved, and the results are; [GFI=.912; CFI=.949; RMSEA=.061; ?2/df=4.178], now this confirms the goodness of fit according to Hair et al., (2009).

 

The Hypothesis of the Study

H1: There is a positive relationship between servant leadership and teaching effectiveness

H2: There is a positive relationship between value people and teaching effectiveness

H3: There is a positive relationship between developing people and teaching effectiveness

Three models were formed and tested. In order to investigate the first hypothesis of the study, the overall effect of SL on TE, the model-1 was formed and analyzed.

 In the second and third hypotheses, individual dimensions of SL on TE were tested, for which further two structural models were formed and analyzed through structural equation modelling (AMOS). 

 

Overall Model (SL &TE)

Figure 1

Individual Dimension of SL (VP &TE)



Figure 2

Individual Dimension of SL (DP &TE)



Table 5. Results of Direct Hypothesis Testing Overall (SL &TE)

 

 

Table 6. The goodness of Fit of Direct Relation Overall (SL &TE)

Path	GFI	CFI	RMSEA	?2/df
SL &TE	0.912	0.916	0.071	4.534

 

Table 7. Hypothesis Testing of Individual Dimension of SL (VP &TE)

No	Hypothesis	?	S. E	Standardized Estimates	C.R	P-Value	Decision
H2	VPàTE	.721	0.35	.660	2.061	0.04	Accepted

 

Path	GFI	CFI	RMSEA	?2/df
VP &TE	0.904	0.914	0.063	4.214

Table 7. Goodness of Fit of Individual Dimension of SL (VP &TE)

 

No	Hypothesis	?	S. E	Standardized Estimates	C.R	P-Value	Decision
H3	DPàTE	.631	0.25	.570	2.524	0.03	Accepted

Table 8. Hypothesis Testing of Individual Dimension of SL (DP &TE)

 

Path	GFI	CFI	RMSEA	?2/df
DP &TE	0.928	0.930	0.0721	4.534

Table 9. Goodness of Fit of Individual Dimension of SL (DP &TE)

Results, Discussion and Conclusion

This study proposed the hypothesis to achieve its first object H1, which states that there is a positive connection between SL & TE, Table 4, shows the analysis of structural model-1, results of path analysis shows that standardized path coefficient value is 0.360; critical ratio is 2.11 and P-value is 0.08. This portrays that the rejection of the first hypothesis which states that there is a positive connection between SL & TE. Results show the insignificant effect of SL on TE. The model fitness can be seen in table 5. The findings of the study are inconsistent with the study of (Drury, 2005), who concluded that teachers act as a servant leader for their students within the classroom environment.

For second hypothesis this study proposed there is a positive connection between value people and TE. Table 5, portrays that shows the analysis of structural model-2, results of path analysis show that standardized path coefficient value is 0.660; Critical Ratio is 2.067 and P-value is 0.04. This portrays that the acceptance of the second hypothesis H2. The model fitness can be seen in table 7. The coefficient value of value people is 0.660, which indicates that one-unit change in value people will bring 0.660 changes in teaching effectiveness. The findings of the study are consistent with (Metzcar, 2008), he investigated SL as a whole construct including all six dimensions, but the main focus was on valuing people, and the context was more inclined towards valuing people so in that context the results matching our findings which is purely based on the individual dimension that is valuing people with teaching effectiveness. A similar procedure was applied to investigate the third hypothesis and found the acceptance of the third hypothesis.

The findings of the third hypothesis are consistent with (Drury, 2005), he has taken SL as a whole construct including all six dimensions, but the main focus was on developing people, and the context was more inclined towards developing people so in that context the results matching our findings which is purely based on the individual dimension that is developing people with teaching effectiveness.

Conclusion

Applying the characteristics, practices, and standards of servant leadership on teaching can have a significant effect on the effect of learning and in the learning experience of the educators and students.

This paper validated and operationalized the concept that a classroom is an institute. The aim of this purely quantitative research paper was to examine the relationship between servant leadership and teaching effectiveness. The findings of the study revealed that the overall model of SL had no significant effect on teaching effectiveness. Interestingly, the dimensions of SL (value people, develop people) were found highly significantly related to teaching effectiveness. In this study, the researcher ran three models to test the hypothesis in order to achieve the objectives. The first model investigated the overall SL relationship with TE. The second model investigated the individual dimension VP (value people) with TE, and the Third model investigated the other individual dimension DP (develop people) with TE.

This study contributed to the body of knowledge by providing new models who are taken as individual dimension from the servant leadership model. These dimensions (VP, DP) have not been previously investigated with teaching effectiveness. So far, three studies, including two doctoral dissertations one research paper, have been conducted to investigate the relationship between SL as a whole with TE.

The finding of the current paper indicates that overall servant leadership had no significant impact on TE, while the individual models depicted that it had a strong significant impact on TE. Which proves that individual dimensions of SL play a vital role in teaching effectiveness. Thus, this study opens the avenue for new research to investigate the further dimensions of overall SL in educational sector. Thus, the results show that compare to overall model of SL, dimensions of SL are more contributing to the teaching effectiveness. The current paper added the literature to the body of knowledge that was called for further investigation. Modern educational institutes demand to influence and inspire, not from authority but from service to others. Therefore, it is concluded that those who desire to lead must dare to serve first.

Future Recommendations

Further research is suggested to investigate the association between servant leadership and teaching effectiveness in different settings like private universities, non-profit organizations. More empirical research is needed to examine how servant leadership and its different dimensions like Display Authenticity, Provides Leadership, share leadership and Builds Community serves as glue to teaching effectiveness and improving educational sector.

References

• Aaron Noland & Keith Richards. (2015). Servant Teaching: An exploration of teacher servant leadership on student outcomes. Journal of the Scholarship of Teaching and Learning, 15, 6, 16-38
• Arif, M., Zahid, S., Kashif, U., & Sindhu, M. I. (2017). Role of leader-member exchange relationship in organizational change management: Mediating role of organizational culture. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 6(1).
• Bowman, R. F. (2004). Teachers as leaders.Clearing House, 77, 187-189.
• Carder, J. C. (2012) The relationship between servant leadership and affective organizational commitment. Unpublished Ph.D Thesis. Indiana Wesleyan University. UMI Number 3602281
• Cerit, Y. (2010). The effects of servant leadership on teachers' organizational commitment in primary schools in Turkey.International Journal of Leadership in Education, 75(3), 301-317.
• Chonko, L. (2007). A philosophy of teaching and moreJournal of MarketingEducation, 29(2), 111-121.
• Devlin, M., & Samarawickrema, G. (2010). The criteria of effective teaching in a changing higher education context. Higher Education Research & Development, 29(2), 111-124.
• Drury, S. (2005, August). Teacher as servant leader: A faculty model for effectiveness with students. In Proceedings of the 2005 Servant Leadership Research Roundtable.
• Ford, L. (1991). Transforming leadership: Jesus' way of creating vision, shaping values & Empowering change. Downers Grove, IL: Inter Varsity Press
• Gall, M. D., Gall, J. P., & Borg, W. R. (2007). Educational research: An introduction. Boston: Pearson.
• Goe, L., Bell, C, & Little, O. (2008). Approaches to evaluating teacher effectiveness: A research synthesis. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
• Greenleaf, R. K. (1977). Servant leadership: A journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York/Mahwah, NJ: Paulist Press
• Haider, R.A, Amir, G., Waqar, H. (2015). The impact of servant leadership on organizational citizenship behaviors with the mediating role of trust and moderating role of group cohesiveness: A Study of public Sector of Pakistan. International Journal of Academic Research in Business and Social SciencesVol. 5, (3)
• Horan, S. M., Chory, R. M., Carton, S. T., Miller, E., & Raposo, P. J. (2013). Testing leader-member exchange theory as a lens to understand students' classroom justice perceptions and antisocial communication. Communication Quarterly, 61(5), 497-518
• Jacobs, (2011). Assessing the Relationship between Servant Leadership and Effective Teaching in a Private University Setting.
• Johnson, C. (2001). Meeting the ethical challenges of leadership. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage
• Knowles, M. A. (1984). Andragogy in action: Applying modern principles of adult learning. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
• Krejcie, R.V., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining Sample Size for Research Activities. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607-610.
• Laub, J. A. (1999). Assessing the servant organization: Development of the Servant Organizational Leadership Assessment (SOLA) instrument.Ph.D. dissertation, Florida Atlantic University, United States.
• Lewis, M. and Starks, D. (1998). Encouraging talk in university tutorials.Academic Exchange Quarterly 2(4),13-19.
• Metzcar, A. (2008). Servant leadership and effective classroom teaching.Ed.D. dissertation, Indiana Wesleyan University, United States, Indiana
• Michael D. Toland and R. J. De Ayala, (2005), A Multilevel Factor Analysis of Students' Evaluations of Teaching, Educational and Psychological Measurement; 65, 272.
• Noland, A. & Richards, K. (2014). The relationship among transformational teaching and student motivation and learning. The Journal of Effective Teaching, 14(3), 5-20.
• Parris, D. L., & Peachey, J. W. (2013). A systematic literature review of servant leadership theory in organizational contexts. Journal of business ethics, 113(3), 377-393.
• Peterson, S. J. & Galvin, B. M. (2012) CEO Servant Leadership: Exploring executive characteristics and firm performance. Personnel psychology,65, 565-596
• Qian Ling, Meizhen Lin, Xiaoyi Wu, (2016). Servant Versus Authentic Leadership, Assessing Effectiveness in China's Hospitality Industry.
• Sendjaya, S., Sarros, J., & Santora, J. (2008). Defining and measuring servant leadership behaviour in organizations. Journal of Management Studies, 45(2), 402-424
• Sindhu, M. I., Ahmad, H. M., & Hashmi, S. H. (2017). Leader-member exchange relationship and organizational justice: Moderating role of organizational change. International Journal of Organizational Leadership, 6(2), 276.
• Spears, L. C. 1995. Reflections on leadership: How Robert K. Greenleaf's theory of servant-leadership influenced today's top management thinkers. New York: John Wiley.
• Stinson, J. M. (1996). Problem-based learning in business education: curriculum design and implementation issues. New Directions for Teaching and Learning in Higher Education, 68, 33-42.
• Tajammal & Ali, (2012). Effects of Servant Leadership on Followers job Performance, Sci., Tech. and Dev., 31 (4): 359-368.
• Wayne, A.J., & Youngs, P. (2003). Teacher characteristics and student achievement gains: A review. Review of Educational Research, 73, 89-122.
• Yasir, M., Imran, R., Irshad, M. K., Mohamad, N. A., & Khan, M. M. (2016). Leadership Styles in Relation to Employees' Trust and Organizational Change Capacity: Evidence from Non-Profit Organizations. SAGE Open, 6(4),